Abdul Vahid P.K. and Others v. State of Kerala and Others

**WP(C) NO. 24863 OF 2021** **1** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V THURSDAY, THE 11[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 20TH KARTHIKA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 24863 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONERS:** 1 ABDUL VAHID P.K. AGED 34 YEARS THAITHOTTATHIL HOUSE, KARUVANTHIRUTHY P.O., MALAPPURAM - 673 631. 2 ABDUL HAKIM P.K. KOYILANDITHODI HOUSE, VAZHAYOOR EAST, MALAPPURAM - 673 633. 3 USMAN P.P. PUTHUKKULANGARA, VAZHAYOOR P.O., MALAPPURAM - 673 633. 4 ABDUL MUNEER P. KIZHAKKEKOZHIPPARAMBIL HOUSE, KUZHMANNA P.O., MALAPPURAM - 673 641. 5 HASEENA K.E. HAJARA MANZIL, PANTHEERANKAVU, KOZHIKODE - 673019. 6 THANKAM P. PALLUNI HOUSE, KADALUNDI P.O., MALAPPURAM - 673 302. BY ADVS. AUGUSTINE JOSEPH K.S.ROCKEY TONY AUGUSTINE GEORGE RENOY ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. **WP(C) NO. 24863 OF 2021** **2** 2 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER DOWN HILL, MALAPPURAM - 676 519. 3 THE MANAGER P.M.S.A.P.T.HS SCHOOL, KAKKOVE, VAZHAYOOR, MALAPPURAM - 676 523. ## **OTHER PRESENT:** SRI BIJOY CHANDRAN SR GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WP(C) NO. 24863 OF 2021** **3** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners state that they were appointed as teachers in the P.M.S.A.P.T.H.S. School on 1.6.2010. However, their appointment was approved only with effect from 1.6.2011 by including them in the teacher’s package. Being aggrieved, the petitioners are stated to have preferred a consolidated revision petition before the 1st respondent. Their prayer in this Writ Petition is for a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the revision petition. 2. Sri.Augustine Joseph, the learned counsel submitted that the Government had, as per G.O (P) No.317/2005/G.Edn. dated 17.8.2005, imposed a ban on the appointment of teachers and non-teaching staff in additional division vacancies. Later, by G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.1.2010, the ban on appointments was lifted subject to certain conditions. One among the conditions was that the Managers should execute a consent letter undertaking that in future vacancies, protected teachers equal to the number of teachers, appointed to the additional division vacancies during the period 2006-07 to 2009-10, would be appointed. The 3rd respondent failed to execute the bond as required in the Government Order. Thereafter, the Government issued G.O.(P)No.199/2011/G.Edn dated 01.06.2011 approving **WP(C) NO. 24863 OF 2021** **4** the recommendations for implementation of the comprehensive teacher’s package for appointment of deployed/protected teachers. The petitioners were also included in the package and their appointment was regularised with effect from 1.6.2011. According to the petitioners, teachers similarly placed as the petitioners had approached this Court and by various judgments, this Court had directed the respondents to approve the appointment from the date of appointment by deeming that the manager has executed the bond. The learned counsel contends that it is settled by now that even in cases wherein, bonds have not been executed by the Manager, the Managers would be deemed to have executed the bond and they would be obliged to make appointments from the list of protected teachers, equal to the number of appointments approved during the ban period. 3. The learned Government Pleader submitted that all appointments in additional division vacancies are liable to be apportioned in the ratio of 1:1 and if the appointment of the protected teacher is not done as provided in G.O. (P) No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.1.2010, then the Manager ought to have executed a bond stating that such appointments would be made in accordance with the provisions of the Government Order. It is further submitted that some of the Managers have challenged G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.1.2010 and those matters are now pending before the Apex Court. It is further submitted that it is for the 1st respondent to consider whether the petitioners **WP(C) NO. 24863 OF 2021** **5** would be entitled to the benefits of G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn. 4. I have considered the submissions advanced. The petitioners claim that they were appointed during the period when the ban, pursuant to G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn. Dated 12.1.2010, was in force. The question as to whether the above Government Order would apply to the petitioners herein has to be ascertained by the 1st respondent while considering the revision petition. As rightly contended by the learned counsel, a Division Bench of this Court in **State of Kerala and Ors. v. V.S.Suma Devi and Ors** . [judgment dated 1.8.2017 in W.A.No.2111/2015], has held that in the case of non-execution of the bond by the Managers, it should be deemed that bonds have been executed and the Managers would be obliged to make an equal number of appointments when the appointments to additional vacancies made during the ban period are approved. Insofar as the pendency of the petitions instituted by the Managers before the Hon’ble Apex Court is concerned, the orders passed shall be subject to the final orders that may be passed by the Apex Court in the pending litigation. 5. After having carefully evaluated the contentions raised in this writ petition, the submissions made across the Bar and the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of by issuing the following directions: a) The 1st respondent is directed to take up Exhibit P7 revision **WP(C) NO. 24863 OF 2021** **6** petition submitted by the petitioners and pass orders with notice to the petitioners as well as the 3rd respondent and take a decision, as per procedure and in accordance with the law. Appropriate orders shall be passed expeditiously, in any event, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. - b) While considering the petition, the Secretary to Government shall consider whether G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.1.2010 would apply and if it applies, the 1st respondent shall be free to reckon that the Managers would be deemed to have executed the bond and also that they would be obliged to make appointments from the list of protected teachers equal to the number of appointments approved during the ban period. The fact that the petition challenging G.O.(P) No.10/10 filed by the Managers is pending consideration of the Hon’ble Supreme Court shall not be taken as a ground to deny the benefits to the petitioners. It is made clear that the orders passed by the 1st respondent shall be subject to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the pending petitions. - c) It would be open to the petitioners to produce a copy of the **WP(C) NO. 24863 OF 2021** **7** writ petition along with the judgment before the concerned respondent for further action. The writ petition is disposed of. **SD/-** **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE** DSV **WP(C) NO. 24863 OF 2021** **8** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24863/2021** PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 1/6/2010 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 1/6/2010 OF THE 2ND PETITIONER. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 1/6/2010 OF THE 3RD PETITIONER. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 1/6/2010 OF THE 4TH PETITIONER. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 5TH PETITIONER DATED 1/6/2010. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 6TH PETITIONER DATED 1/6/2010. Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 14/10/2021 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.